Now we shall attempt to bring together Sismondi's general point of view on capitalism (a task which, as the reader will recall, Efrussi also set for himself) and examine the practical program of romanticism.

We have seen that Sismondi's merit consisted in being among the first to point out the contradictions of capitalism. But, having pointed them out, he not only made no attempt to analyze them and explain their origin, development, and tendency, but even regarded them as unnatural or erroneous deviations from the norm. Against these "deviations" he naively revolted with sententious pronouncements, denunciations, advice to eliminate them, etc., as though these contradictions did not express the real interests of real groups of the population occupying a definite place in the general structure of contemporary economic life. This is the most striking characteristic of romanticism: to take the contradiction of interests (deeply rooted in the very structure of economic life) for a contradiction or error in doctrine, system, even in measures, etc. The narrow horizon of the Kleinbürger, who himself stands apart from developed contradictions and occupies an intermediate, transitional position between two antipodes, is here combined with naive idealism—we are almost inclined to say: bureaucratism—which explains the social structure by the opinions of men (especially men in power), and not vice versa. Let us cite examples of all such judgments by Sismondi.

"In forgetting men for the sake of things, has not England sacrificed the end to the means?

The example of England is all the more striking because it is a free nation, enlightened, well-governed, and all its calamities proceed solely from the fact that it has followed a false economic direction" (I, p. IX). For Sismondi, England generally plays the role of a frightening example for the continent—exactly as it does for our romantics, who imagine they are saying something new but are merely reproducing the oldest trash. "In drawing the attention of my readers to England, I wished to show… the history of our own future, if we continue to proceed according to the principles which it has followed" (I, p. XVI).

"...The states of the continent consider it necessary to follow England in its manufacturing career" (II, 330). "There is no spectacle more striking, more terrifying, than that which England presents" (II, 332).

"We must not forget that wealth is merely that which represents (n'est que la représentation) the pleasantness and conveniences of life" (in place of bourgeois wealth, wealth in general is now substituted!), "and to create artificial wealth, condemning a nation to all that in reality represents poverty and suffering, is to take the name of a thing for its essence" (prendre le mot pour la chose) (I, 379).

"...As long as nations followed only the indications of nature and enjoyed the advantages afforded them by climate, soil, location, possession of raw materials, they did not place themselves in an unnatural position (une position forcée), they did not seek apparent wealth (une opulence apparente), which for the mass of the people is transformed into real destitution" (I, 411). Bourgeois wealth is merely apparent!! "It is dangerous for a nation to close its doors to foreign trade: the nation is compelled thereby, so to speak (en quelque sorte), to false activity, which will lead to its ruin" (I, 448).

"...In wages there is a necessary part which must maintain the life, strength, and health of those who receive it... Woe to the government that touches this part—it sacrifices everything together (il sacrifie tout ensemble)—both men and hope for future wealth... This distinction shows us how false is the policy of those governments which have reduced the working classes to wages just sufficient to increase the net income of manufacturers, merchants, and proprietors" (II, 169).

"The time has finally come to ask: where are we going?" (où l'on veut aller) (II, 328).

"The division of them (namely the class of proprietors and the laboring class), the opposition of their interests is a consequence of the modern artificial organization which we have given to human society... The natural order of social progress never aimed to separate men from things or wealth from labor; in the countryside—the proprietor could remain a farmer; in the city—the capitalist could remain an artisan; the separation of the laboring class from the idle class was by no means essentially necessary for the existence of society or for production; we introduced it for the greatest advantage of all; it depends upon us (il nous appartient) to regulate it so as to actually achieve this advantage" (II, 348).

"By thus placing producers in opposition to one another (i.e., masters to workers), they were forced to pursue a path diametrically opposed to the interests of society... In this constant struggle for the reduction of wages the social interest, in which, however, each participates, is forgotten by all" (II, 359–360). And preceding this, too, is a recollection of paths bequeathed by history: "In the beginning of social life each man possessed capital by means of which he applied his labor, and almost all craftsmen live on income which consists equally of profit and wages" (II, 359).

I think we have enough... One may be confident that a reader unfamiliar with either Sismondi or Mr. N—ov will find it difficult to say which of the two romantics, below or above the line, has the more primitive and naive point of view.

Entirely in keeping with this are Sismondi's practical demands, to which he devoted so much space in his "Nouveaux Principes."

Our difference from A. Smith, says Sismondi in the very first book of his work, consists in the fact that "we almost always call for that very intervention of government which A. Smith rejected" (I, 52). "The state does not correct distribution..." (I, 80). "The legislator could assure the poor certain guarantees against universal competition" (I, 81). "Production must be proportioned to social income, and those who encourage unlimited production without caring to ascertain this income push the nation to ruin, thinking to open the path to wealth for it" (le chemin des richesses) (I, 82). "When the progress of wealth is gradual (gradué), when it is proportioned to itself, when none of its parts develops excessively rapidly, then it spreads universal well-being... Perhaps the duty of governments consists in slowing down (ralentir!!) this movement, in order to regulate it" (I, 409–410).

Of the enormous historical significance which the development of the productive forces of society possesses, a development occurring precisely through contradictions and disproportionalities, Sismondi has not the slightest conception!

"If government exercises a regulating and moderating effect on the striving for wealth, it can be infinitely beneficial" (I, 413). "Certain trade regulations condemned now by universal opinion, if they deserve condemnation as encouragements to industry, may perhaps be justified as a bridle" (I, 415).

Already in these arguments of Sismondi is evident his striking historical tactlessness: he has not the slightest idea that the whole historical meaning of that period, of which he was a contemporary, consisted in liberation from medieval regulations. He does not feel that his arguments are grist for the mill of the defenders of the ancien régime of that time, who were still so powerful even in France, not to mention other states of the Western European continent, where they held sway.

Thus, the starting point of Sismondi's practical demands is tutelage, retardation, regulation.

Such a point of view flows entirely naturally and inevitably from the whole circle of Sismondi's ideas. He lived at precisely the time when large-scale machine industry was taking its first steps on the European continent, when that steep and sharp transformation of all social relations under the influence of machines was beginning (note, precisely under the influence of machine industry, not "capitalism" in general), a transformation which is customarily called in economic science the industrial revolution. This is how one of the first economists who succeeded in appreciating the full depth of the revolution that created modern European societies in place of patriarchal semi-medieval ones characterizes it:

"...The history of English industrial development in the last 60 years (written in 1844) has nothing equal to itself in the annals of mankind. 60–80 years ago England was a country like any other, with small cities, with insignificant and simple industry, with rare but relatively significant agricultural population. Now it is a country unlike any other, with a capital of 2 1/2 million inhabitants; with large industrial cities; with industry which supplies products to the whole world and produces almost everything by means of extraordinarily complex machines; with an enterprising, intelligent, dense population, two-thirds of which are engaged in industry and trade and consist of completely different classes; this population with other customs, other needs constitutes, in fact, a completely different nation compared to England of that time. The industrial revolution has the same significance for England as the political revolution has for France, as the philosophical revolution has for Germany. And the difference between England in 1760 and England in 1844 is, to say the least, as great as between France under the ancien régime and France of the July Revolution."

This was a complete "breaking-up" of all the old, deeply-rooted relations, whose economic base was small-scale production. It is understandable that Sismondi, from his reactionary petty-bourgeois point of view, could not understand the significance of this "breaking-up." It is understandable that he first and foremost desired, invited, called, and demanded to "stop the breaking-up."

How then could one "stop the breaking-up"? First of all, of course, by support of the people's... that is to say, of "patriarchal production," peasantry, and small-scale agriculture in general. Sismondi devotes an entire chapter (Part VII, ch. VIII) to how "government ought to protect the population from the consequences of competition."

"In relation to the agricultural population the general task of government consists in assuring workers (à ceux qui travaillent) a portion of property, or in supporting (favoriser) what we have called patriarchal agriculture in preference to any other" (II, 340).

"Elizabeth's statute, which was not observed, forbids building a rural cottage in England except on the condition of providing it with land of four acres. If this law had been executed, no marriage could have taken place between day laborers without their receiving their cottage, and no cottager would have been reduced to the last degree of destitution. This would already be something (c'est quelque chose), but it is still insufficient; in England's climate peasant population would live in want with 4 acres per family. Now the cottagers in England have, for the most part, only 1 1/2–2 acres of land, for which they pay rather high rent... It should have been required by law... that the landlord, when he divides his field among many cottagers, give each a sufficient quantity of land so that he could live" (II, 342–343). The reader sees that the demands of romanticism are entirely homogeneous with the demands and programs of the Populists: they are constructed in exactly the same way upon the ignoring of actual economic development and upon the senseless substitution, in the epoch of large-scale machine industry, fierce competition, and the struggle of interests—of conditions reproducing the patriarchal conditions of hoary antiquity.